| 1 |
I don't want to point fingers in any one direction, so I'm replying to |
| 2 |
the initial mail in this thread. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
[snip proposition] |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Improvements in this direction are indeed needed, but I would really |
| 8 |
like it if the volatile mix of paludis/pkgcore developers would not |
| 9 |
explode all over the mailing list. Please don't let the discussions |
| 10 |
get personal. The past is the past, don't insert indirect references |
| 11 |
to it and heat up the discussion. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
On a related note, I really like Zac's and solar's no-nonsense |
| 14 |
get-stuff-done-even-if-it-isn't-perfect attitude, and would love it if |
| 15 |
everyone else applied it as well (if they don't already). I don't care |
| 16 |
if the proposal is perfect; as a potential user of those features, I |
| 17 |
want it to be implemented in portage in a reasonable time-frame. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Over-engineering and then designing something to death is not the way |
| 20 |
to deliver said feature to the user. It's really stupid when the |
| 21 |
design document gets more attention than the implementation used by |
| 22 |
90% of our users. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Also, what I'm about to say next may make your blood boil, but tbh, |
| 25 |
most of our users do not care about any package manager besides |
| 26 |
portage. If a feature cannot be delivered to portage users in a |
| 27 |
reasonable time-frame, it's useless. Either fix your design so it can |
| 28 |
be implemented in portage, or fix portage so your design can be |
| 29 |
implemented in it. Your choice. Don't say "Oh, use XXX package |
| 30 |
manager". |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Thank you for reading! |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team |
Archives